You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Ken Anderson - update.

Ken Anderson - update.

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 18 ... 23  Next

Go down  Message [Page 13 of 23]

361 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 12:10

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Players held a meeting today over whether to strike ahead of tomorrow’s game over not being paid.

362 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 12:12

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Players held a meeting today over whether to strike ahead of tomorrow’s game over not being paid.

I hope they do, then I can watch Chorley.

363 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 12:23

Growler


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Players held a meeting today over whether to strike ahead of tomorrow’s game over not being paid.
I can't see them not turning out for a league match.Whether they will give 100% is another matter.

364 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 12:47

MartinBWFC

avatar
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I can't see them not turning out for a league match.Whether they will give 100% is another matter.
They only give 50% when they are getting paid.

365 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 13:04

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Playing Saturday striking Sunday. All players and staff. No payment and no due date given either.

366 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 13:23

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Playing Saturday striking Sunday. All players and staff. No payment and no due date given either.

Is Boggers your source?

367 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 13:24

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Playing Saturday striking Sunday. All players and staff. No payment and no due date given either.

ALL staff being paid today (as usual).

Players probably going to be paid Monday.


Iles tweets -

Staff at #bwfc have now been informed that ALL wages will be paid by the close of business. Unclear whether that applies to the players as well.

Reply to tweet -

So
Everyone has been paid on the day they were supposed to be paid?
Can someone let Reuters know they're missing the story of the month?
Next breaking news: Saturday immediately followed by Sunday.

Iles in a strop -

Well actually, smart arse, coaching staff and players have NOT been paid today. Glad for the admin and hotel employees but not exactly a cause to jump for joy ahead of a big game...

Senior players will have a conference call with owner Ken Anderson this afternoon seeking answers on ongoing financial issues at the club

368 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 13:47

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Playing Saturday striking Sunday. All players and staff. No payment and no due date given either.



Glad for the admin and hotel employees but not exactly a cause to jump for joy ahead of a big game...


Can't disagree with Marc Iles on that but would someone please explain to some of his following that it has not been the responsibility of company owners to pay the company's debts out of their own pockets (or their wife's purses) since Lord Palmerston was first Prime Minister.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Fri Nov 30 2018, 15:06; edited 1 time in total

369 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 14:01

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse


Dear BWFCST member.

We have today sent an open letter to the owner registering our grave concerns relating to the obvious ongoing financial distress at BWFC. In the letter we ask him to find either a new owner or new investment as a matter of urgency and to remove any barriers which he has placed in the way of moving either of these options forward.

The situation that arose yesterday regarding yet more potential late payment of wages, this time affecting both general club staff as well as players, is surely unacceptable?

It has been demonstrated by the owner that his company, Inner Circle Investments, is not capable of securing such funds, with his reports of lack of progress with the two prospective buyers making no progress.

Excuses from the owner as reported today about being let down with proof of funding from two potential buyers recommended by a "top Premier League fixer" now ring very hollow and must, surely, be viewed as unacceptable.

We will keep you informed of any response received.

The letter can be viewed in full [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

BWFCST Board
30 November 2018                       

370 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 14:51

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Don't think KA will be too impressed with that but the question does need to be asked. Why do all these potential bids fall through? Is it really lack of funds or to do with him personally?

371 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 15:09

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Don't think KA will be too impressed with that but the question does need to be asked. Why do all these potential bids fall through? Is it really lack of funds or to do with him personally?
Not sure Norpig. All our potential investors appear to be of the Michael Knighton variety.

372 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 15:19

MartinBWFC

avatar
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
Thing is and it's a huge thing, KA can only meet wages when the DDs from season tickets come in supposedly on Monday, so where do December wages come from? then there's HMRC  in January, not looking good for Ken is it! we will be put into admin in the VERY near future, would that be a disaster? I don't think so.

373 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 15:33

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
That ground swap with Chorley is looking a great option right now.

374 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 15:47

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Thing is and it's a huge thing, KA can only meet wages when the DDs from season tickets come in supposedly on Monday, so where do December wages come from? then there's HMRC  in January, not looking good for Ken is it! we will be put into admin in the VERY near future, would that be a disaster? I don't think so.

A number of things there Martin, not least that simply going into Administration doesn't necessarily mean that Anderson will actually lose ownership of the club (if that is what your hope was?).

The main problem that faces most businesses is cash flow and it is more than likely all major debtors (including HMRC) will be catered for even if that means delays in wage payments occasionally.

Bolton only had one home game this month, until Tuesday's game and this more than anything probably had a bearing on why the staff was informed the money might not be there for their wages on time - it wouldn't surprise me if the club (Anderson) had tried to get the DD's for today rather than Monday and got knocked back at the last moment.

We have four home games next month starting tomorrow, so I doubt that the club will be having any issues with creditors or payment of the wages for the rest of this year no matter how many people would wish it on us just so they can bitch about the Anderson's.

For what it is worth I did note one very senior ST Board member liking tweets alluding that Anderson cared fuck all about the club just as long as he was getting plenty money from it for his own personal benefit!

375 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 15:55

MartinBWFC

avatar
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
A number of things there Martin, not least that simply going into Administration doesn't necessarily mean that Anderson will actually lose ownership of the club (if that is what your hope was?).

The main problem that faces most businesses is cash flow and it is more than likely all major debtors (including HMRC) will be catered for even if that means delays in wage payments occasionally.

Bolton only had one home game this month, until Tuesday's game and this more than anything probably had a bearing on why the staff was informed the money might not be there for their wages on time - it wouldn't surprise me if the club (Anderson) had tried to get the DD's for today rather than Monday and got knocked back at the last moment.

We have four home games next month starting tomorrow, so I doubt that the club will be having any issues with creditors or payment of the wages for the rest of this year no matter how many people would wish it on us just so they can bitch about the Anderson's.

For what it is worth I did note one very senior ST Board member liking tweets alluding that Anderson cared fuck all about the club just as long as he was getting plenty money from it for his own personal benefit!
All well and good Sluffy, but why is it just BWFC that continues on this path, clubs such as Bury, Rochdale and the likes don't seem to have these problems on much lower gates, there's problems galore behind the scenes here and it's all beginning to stench the place out.

376 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 16:09

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
A number of things there Martin, not least that simply going into Administration doesn't necessarily mean that Anderson will actually lose ownership of the club (if that is what your hope was?).

The main problem that faces most businesses is cash flow and it is more than likely all major debtors (including HMRC) will be catered for even if that means delays in wage payments occasionally.

Bolton only had one home game this month, until Tuesday's game and this more than anything probably had a bearing on why the staff was informed the money might not be there for their wages on time - it wouldn't surprise me if the club (Anderson) had tried to get the DD's for today rather than Monday and got knocked back at the last moment.

We have four home games next month starting tomorrow, so I doubt that the club will be having any issues with creditors or payment of the wages for the rest of this year no matter how many people would wish it on us just so they can bitch about the Anderson's.

For what it is worth I did note one very senior ST Board member liking tweets alluding that Anderson cared fuck all about the club just as long as he was getting plenty money from it for his own personal benefit!
All well and good Sluffy, but why is it just BWFC that continues on this path, clubs such as Bury, Rochdale and the likes don't seem to have these problems on much lower gates, there's problems galore behind the scenes here and it's all beginning to stench the place out.

Ever thought that maybe they do - but they don't have people like Iles and the ST making huge issues about it and putting it into the public domain all the time?

At the end of the day, despite what the likes of Iles is making out - it looks like a pay day for the players (only) may be missed by a couple of days.  Ok it shouldn't be and it does cause some people a nuisance but its happened to me before more than once - and I was working at the time in the public sector and knew that my wages were guaranteed.

The players wages are also guaranteed no matter what - so at the end of the day it might annoy them a bit but they KNOW they will get paid and any costs they incur during the delay will be covered too - and that's why despite everything that nutjobs at the ST and twitter say, players will still continue signing for the club.

If Iles had not tweeted and published an article based on information he clearly had not seen or heard the clubs side first - would we have known about the possible delay in the payment of wages - after all the staff got paid on time anyway as in turned out.

It's been clear to me for a long while that Iles has got his own personal agenda and that most other clubs journalists from their local papers certainly wouldn't be rushing out to wash their dirty laundry in public like Iles constantly does.



Last edited by Sluffy on Fri Nov 30 2018, 16:10; edited 1 time in total

377 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 16:10

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Its hard to work out what KA is doing, if he was just interested in the money he would sell to any old consortium and just disappear, but it's very obvious we can't carry on much longer like this.

378 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 16:13

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
A number of things there Martin, not least that simply going into Administration doesn't necessarily mean that Anderson will actually lose ownership of the club (if that is what your hope was?).

The main problem that faces most businesses is cash flow and it is more than likely all major debtors (including HMRC) will be catered for even if that means delays in wage payments occasionally.

Bolton only had one home game this month, until Tuesday's game and this more than anything probably had a bearing on why the staff was informed the money might not be there for their wages on time - it wouldn't surprise me if the club (Anderson) had tried to get the DD's for today rather than Monday and got knocked back at the last moment.

We have four home games next month starting tomorrow, so I doubt that the club will be having any issues with creditors or payment of the wages for the rest of this year no matter how many people would wish it on us just so they can bitch about the Anderson's.

For what it is worth I did note one very senior ST Board member liking tweets alluding that Anderson cared fuck all about the club just as long as he was getting plenty money from it for his own personal benefit!
All well and good Sluffy, but why is it just BWFC that continues on this path, clubs such as Bury, Rochdale and the likes don't seem to have these problems on much lower gates, there's problems galore behind the scenes here and it's all beginning to stench the place out.

Ever thought that maybe they do - but they don't have people like Iles and the ST making huge issues about it and putting it into the public domain all the time?

At the end of the day, despite what the likes of Iles is making out - it looks like a pay day for the players (only) may be missed by a couple of days.  Ok it shouldn't be and it does cause some people a nuisance but its happened to me before more than once - and I was working at the time in the public sector and knew that my wages were guaranteed.

The players wages are also guaranteed no matter what - so at the end of the day it might annoy them a bit but they KNOW they will get paid and any costs they incur during the delay will be covered too - and that's why despite everything that nutjobs at the ST and twitter say, players will still continue signing for the club.

If Iles had not tweeted and published an article based on information he clearly had not seen or heard the clubs side first - would we have known about the possible delay in the payment of wages - after all the staff got paid on time anyway as in turned out.

It's been clear to me for a long while that Iles has got his own personal agenda and that most other clubs journalists from their local papers certainly wouldn't be rushing out to wash their dirty laundry in public like Iles constantly does.

Tweet just now by Iles -

I understand a small number of senior players spoke to Ken Anderson this afternoon about pay problems and have been assured they will have their November salary by Thursday (December 6).


379 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 16:17

Norpig

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I don't personally think Iles has an agenda against KA, it's his job to report on BWFC whether it's good or bad and for me he does that.

380 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Fri Nov 30 2018, 20:05

T.R.O.Y


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Iles is doing his job, silly to suggest otherwise really. Let’s face it, this situation isn’t going to change unless we’re sold - which doesn’t seem likely. Guess we have to suck it up, credit Parky for the way he’s handled the situation again. Can’t help but speculate as to the impact this is going to have on the players.

381 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sat Dec 01 2018, 00:13

Kane57

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
.



Last edited by Kane57 on Sat Dec 01 2018, 09:23; edited 1 time in total

382 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sat Dec 01 2018, 01:03

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
It’s getting to be like Groundhog Day at BWFC with questions about the running of the club spilling over into uncertainty about cash flow and failure to secure the promised investment and the likes of Sluffy continuing to spout the conspiracy theory that the media, potential investors, creditors, Supporters Trust and everyone on Twitter and Facebook and their dog  all have it in for poor honest Ken..
I outlined what I think are the issues with his tenure and apparent intentions months if not years ago and in the absence of information with which to question Anderson’s controlled messaging - and in the face of increasingly hysterical defence of his behaviour I agreed to let it drop until the truth emerges which it eventually will.
I don’t think anything has happened to change that view.

383 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sat Dec 01 2018, 09:01

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
A number of things there Martin, not least that simply going into Administration doesn't necessarily mean that Anderson will actually lose ownership of the club (if that is what your hope was?).

The main problem that faces most businesses is cash flow and it is more than likely all major debtors (including HMRC) will be catered for even if that means delays in wage payments occasionally.

Bolton only had one home game this month, until Tuesday's game and this more than anything probably had a bearing on why the staff was informed the money might not be there for their wages on time - it wouldn't surprise me if the club (Anderson) had tried to get the DD's for today rather than Monday and got knocked back at the last moment.

We have four home games next month starting tomorrow, so I doubt that the club will be having any issues with creditors or payment of the wages for the rest of this year no matter how many people would wish it on us just so they can bitch about the Anderson's.

For what it is worth I did note one very senior ST Board member liking tweets alluding that Anderson cared fuck all about the club just as long as he was getting plenty money from it for his own personal benefit!
All well and good Sluffy, but why is it just BWFC that continues on this path, clubs such as Bury, Rochdale and the likes don't seem to have these problems on much lower gates, there's problems galore behind the scenes here and it's all beginning to stench the place out.

Ever thought that maybe they do - but they don't have people like Iles and the ST making huge issues about it and putting it into the public domain all the time?

At the end of the day, despite what the likes of Iles is making out - it looks like a pay day for the players (only) may be missed by a couple of days.  Ok it shouldn't be and it does cause some people a nuisance but its happened to me before more than once - and I was working at the time in the public sector and knew that my wages were guaranteed.

The players wages are also guaranteed no matter what - so at the end of the day it might annoy them a bit but they KNOW they will get paid and any costs they incur during the delay will be covered too - and that's why despite everything that nutjobs at the ST and twitter say, players will still continue signing for the club.

If Iles had not tweeted and published an article based on information he clearly had not seen or heard the clubs side first - would we have known about the possible delay in the payment of wages - after all the staff got paid on time anyway as in turned out.

It's been clear to me for a long while that Iles has got his own personal agenda and that most other clubs journalists from their local papers certainly wouldn't be rushing out to wash their dirty laundry in public like Iles constantly does.
Can't say that I follow other clubs local reporting but there is most definitely friction between Iles and Anderson. But there was also clear friction between Gordon Shorrock and Phil Gartside that I believe coloured the BN reporting over several years and was part of the climate that Iles walked into when first appointed. But that's another story.

Its always seemed fairly clear to me that, without new money before the end of 2018, the club was going to run into severe cash flow problems and that  getting the new money was not going to be easy, no matter how hard Anderson tried. Eddie Davies tried for at least fifteen months (and probably a lot longer) to try to get someone to take over a better proposition but with no success.

Delaying the wages payment until 6 December will delay the tax on it for another month but its 'spinning plates' and won't solve the problem. Ken Anderson doesn't give up easily but at some stage he's bound to want to move on and do something else with the rest of his life. At the moment it must seem like all his luck is running out.

384 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sat Dec 01 2018, 09:44

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.

385 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sat Dec 01 2018, 10:29

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.

386 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sat Dec 01 2018, 17:06

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.
Re para 2 
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.

387 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sat Dec 01 2018, 22:15

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.
Re para 2 
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.
You'll have to explain to me why Ken and Patricia Anderson should spend whatever relatively small amounts of money they have saved up during their lifetime on Bolton Wanderers. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination but I must confess that I'm struggling to think of a good reason.

388 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sat Dec 01 2018, 23:57

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:It’s getting to be like Groundhog Day at BWFC with questions about the running of the club spilling over into uncertainty about cash flow and failure to secure the promised investment and the likes of Sluffy continuing to spout the conspiracy theory that the media, potential investors, creditors, Supporters Trust and everyone on Twitter and Facebook and their dog  all have it in for poor honest Ken..
I outlined what I think are the issues with his tenure and apparent intentions months if not years ago and in the absence of information with which to question Anderson’s controlled messaging - and in the face of increasingly hysterical defence of his behaviour I agreed to let it drop until the truth emerges which it eventually will.
I don’t think anything has happened to change that view.

Eh, what the fuck are you on about you complete nutjob?

I've said I believe the local club reporter as an agenda against Anderson NOT the world's media!  I've never mentioned any potential investors having issues with KA because I've no idea of who any of them have been!  The only creditor I'm aware of with an outstanding issue with Ken is Heathcote - and clearly KA has an issue with him too - he's stated as much!

As for the ST, this is what one of the founder members and current Board member posted on twitter about KA as recently as Thursday -

"If he said Good Morning to me, I'd have to check outside to see if there was day light...",

...so yes I really DO think they are hardcore anti-Andersons in both word and intent!

I don't do Facebook so clearly I've never said anything about whatever is posted up on there and as for Twitter it is self evident that there is certainly a lynch mob on there after Anderson's head!

It's you who fail to comprehend reality just to continue to push your crazy, preconceived anti-Anderson agenda.  Christ you've had him down as an asset stripper and have been banging on about him deliberately going to bankrupt the club from day one - he must be the worst asset stripper in the world then because almost three years later he's still not managed to achieve that and spurned every opportunity to go into Administration when it actually seemed easier for him to do so!

Rolling Eyes

389 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sun Dec 02 2018, 02:01

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.
Re para 2 
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.
You'll have to explain to me why Ken and Patricia Anderson should spend whatever relatively small amounts of money they have saved up during their lifetime on Bolton Wanderers. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination but I must confess that I'm struggling to think of a good reason.
I don’t. They simply shouldn’t be involved in running a football club. As Allardyce said, BWFC needs owners with the requisite finances. We certainly don’t need a cowboy with a track record of asset stripping for personal gain. How Anderson passed the “fit persons” test given his history I’ll never know, but that’s water under the bridge and now we’re stuck with him.

390 Re: Ken Anderson - update. on Sun Dec 02 2018, 09:36

Ten Bobsworth


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:TB - when you say that ED tried to get inward investment for 15 months, please could you clarify if this was whilst he was the majority shareholder (i.e. he was looking for around £200 million for the club 
) or when Anderson got involved when ED had written off the vast majority of the debt and the T and Cs of any investment were being set by Anderson? 
It’s just that I heard Anderson scared off solid investors by making unreasonable demands for a big payoff despite having decimated the value of the club through pawning the assets.
ED didn't usually talk to the media but was reported (c. October 2014) to be asking for £30m with his loans (£185m) written off. Remember that these loans had not only funded ongoing losses but had repaid all the bank loans that been taken out to fund the building and further development of the Reebok and other property.

I feel sure he would have acceped a great deal less if he could have found bona fide purchasers rather than the long list of chancers and suspected asset strippers that arrived on the scene when it was mooted that he was ready to virtually give it away with scarcely any debt.

I expect Ken Anderson would try to get the best pay off he could but I also expect that he would no be so daft as to risk losing everything by turning away 'solid investors' that were going to give him something worthwhile for his time and effort. i.e. more than Holdsworth got for doing very little.
Re para 2 
Anderson is the asset stripper though which is why solid investors won’t give him that payday. He hasn’t put a penny into the club.
You'll have to explain to me why Ken and Patricia Anderson should spend whatever relatively small amounts of money they have saved up during their lifetime on Bolton Wanderers. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination but I must confess that I'm struggling to think of a good reason.
I don’t. They simply shouldn’t be involved in running a football club. As Allardyce said, BWFC needs owners with the requisite finances. We certainly don’t need a cowboy with a track record of asset stripping for personal gain. How Anderson passed the “fit persons” test given his history I’ll never know, but that’s water under the bridge and now we’re stuck with him.
Ah the old 'big snouts need big troughs' hypothesis. Its true enough when applied to football finance but its not exactly profound, is it?

Back to top  Message [Page 13 of 23]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 18 ... 23  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum